Casulties of War
Last week, the potentially landmark lawsuit LabCorp v. Metabolite got dropped from the US Supreme Court. The three dissents were hell bent on kicking patentability back a notch, and I am with them. However I think everyone who is actually practicing patent law would prefer to let the sleeping beast sleep for some more.
But I guess we shouldn’t speak too fast. In the mid-to-late 1900s we’ve had some serious caselaw over what is obvious in respect to what can be patented. Needless to say it’s a big, grey mucky area that no one can say for sure all the time. As a subscriber of the future curve theory of social and scientific progress, I feel like a war profiteer, going into this industry during such a time of unrest. Indeed times have changed, will our jurisprudence remain?
Stroke Yourself
Because comments are now enabled on this blog. Go to town.
Even the deragned need company, desho? Imaginary or otherwise~
Service Service!
Community service is a part of a healthy person’s livelihood. It should be something he or she does on a regular basis. Ok, no, I’m not talking about public nudity.
The tricky part, however, is all in the motivation. Why should we service our community? There are probably a dozen or more ways to answer the question, from duty to passion to communism to some twisted self-fulfillment.
And in a way, it parallels public nudity. No sane, normal person would go out naked. If you examine the exceptions, there are really two types: mental instability, or because it is the norm. Exhibitionists? They’re crazy. Girls go wild on spring break, nudist beaches, nudist colonies and rural African tribes? That’s just how it works. I suppose the former is a fibby line, but the later is fairly obvious.
If you look around, there are plenty of charitable efforts by normal folks. There are multi-billion dollar charities. We must get something out of it. Perhaps it could be said that people who are compassionate towards the needy are crazy in how they give away what is rightfully theirs freely. It is like the exhibitionist in that regard.
But a community that serves itself publically through a good, healthy, community spirit of service–people who are willing to donate their time, effort, and money to greater causes and serve the needy–can also be a community thing. It makes sense that it is easier and more frequent for a group of people to spend a day build some houses, rather than a few, independent pioneers who tries to do the same. Perhaps amongst other crazy people, you don’t feel so odd thinking like a crazy person?
I wouldn’t know–I am crazy.
Nothing Is Obvious
It’s just Patently-O, but this and this bothers me.
Seriously, though. Is it really lawyers and judges’ place to make this kind of decision? I really don’t think so, simply because I respect what patents are ultimately trying to do.
Ok, it’s a little dated, but hey.
Killing them softly with his sweet opinion♪
This past Monday, the landmark patent law case, eBay v. MercExchange, was decided by the US Supreme Court. You can find the complete slip opinion here. Many other patent law blogs summarized the issue to its extremities and fine grain details, but you can look at it as one of the key battles between so-called patent trolls and big tech corporations in summary.
Surprisingly the Supreme Court came out with a fairly centrist opinion but ruled in favor of eBay (kind of) to vacate the appeals court decision. One of the axioms of the US Supreme Court in the mess that is patent law today was that each Supreme Court opinion messes with the overall structure, harming rather than helping patent litigators, prosecutors, investors and inventors. Why is that? It’s hard to say in short but it might have to do with making laws in the vacuum.
Thankfully this opinion isn’t likely to alter the landscape of law too much. While weakening what injunctions are for patent infringers today, the opinion seemed more corrective than authoritative. The normal elements of injunctive relief is still fully available as they were for decades, and at the discretion of the trial court. The two concurring opinions were very informative and Chief Justice Robert’s opinion re-nailed the opinion of the court:
“The decision whether to grant or deny injunctive relief rests within the equitable discretion of the district courts, and that such discretion must be exercised consistent with traditional principles of equity, in patent disputes no less than in other cases governed by such standards.”
The standards, on that note, are:
“(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. “
The surprise is just how the Supreme Court justices couched their positions. It seemed that this is one thing that the various justices tend to agree with, given its unanimous decision with two heavily-joined concurrences. Probably slightly less than exciting, overall, was this case given the hype it had. And all is good.
